A leaked AMD document for retail partners spelled out specifications of the first three FX "Vishera" processors by AMD. The new CPUs incorporate AMD's "Piledriver" architecture, and much like the first-generation "Zambezi" chips, will launch as one each of eight-core, six-core, and four-core chips. The eight-core FX-8350 is confirmed to ship with 4.00 GHz nominal clock speed, with 4.20 GHz TurboCore speed. The six-core FX-6300 ships with 3.50 GHz nominal, and 4.10 GHz TurboCore speed. The quad-core FX-4320, on the other hand, ships with the same clock speeds as the FX-8350. In addition, the document confirmed clock speeds of several socket FM2 A-series APUs, such as the A10-5700 and the A8-5500.

I can already see myself bugging my retailer to daily, ask if FX-8350 is "already in stock"; after it gets released. Too bad hardware is always at least a week or two behind in availability here where I live. But still - these are great news! Kinda foreshadowing that the Piledriver is right around the corner and is going to "show up" soon! Weee~! ^___^

PD will likely be what BD should have been, an actual upgrade over the Phenoms. But it still won't touch Intel.

Also consider that those cores will prolly be the same as BD. Not actual cores, just AMD's version of Hyper Threading.

Click to expand...

Clearly you don't understand how it works then. Hyper Threading is virtual CPU cores, i.e. they're not physically inside the CPU, but it's rather the ability of one core to run multiple (two in Intel's case) threads.

AMD's route is very different, as their CPU's actually have the stated amount of cores. However, each core doesn't have a dedicated FPU and the cache is shared between the two integer processors.

Neither is ideal, but AMD clearly has a lack of FPU power and the shared cache caused some additional head ache, especially during bad predictions. But no, BD/PD is not AMD's version of Hyper Threading, instead it's AMD's attempt at adding more integer performance at the cost of FPU performance which doesn't really make sense... Now if they could do Hyper Threading on the FPU...

Clearly you don't understand how it works then. Hyper Threading is virtual CPU cores, i.e. they're not physically inside the CPU, but it's rather the ability of one core to run multiple (two in Intel's case) threads.

AMD's route is very different, as their CPU's actually have the stated amount of cores. However, each core doesn't have a dedicated FPU and the cache is shared between the two integer processors.

Neither is ideal, but AMD clearly has a lack of FPU power and the shared cache caused some additional head ache, especially during bad predictions. But no, BD/PD is not AMD's version of Hyper Threading, instead it's AMD's attempt at adding more integer performance at the cost of FPU performance which doesn't really make sense... Now if they could do Hyper Threading on the FPU...

Click to expand...

Oh I know how it works.

But it depends on what you count as the core. If you count the module as a core then AMD is not making 8 core CPUs but Quad core. If you count the integer processors per module then you got your 8 core CPU.

Its the closest term I can think to really call it if you consider it as a quad module, which I do. Each core does the work of two. Resources shared. Yeah its not virtual but it still isn't separate physical cores like it was with Phenom.

Personally, yeah I want to see AMD make something competitive but I cannot see this design as a true 8 core machine. When you consider that AMD can't make it's own HTT tech without paying Intel, this is the best solution AMD could pull. Is it a good start since it isn't virtual, but there should be an * by the 8 core part.

AMD in their past docs have listed the FX cores in reference to the module itself. The core would consist of 2...etc. So if AMD says those are the cores then by their own definition these are quad cores. But for advertising that just doesn't sound good enough. Quad core that does 8T without virtual HTT tech....nah, not gonna sell people on that. So, name it 8 core.

Will I buy a PD in the end, likely. I've been waiting for it. But I'm not gonna get hopes up then be disappointed. PD originally looked good on paper when the first info on it started coming out. But since then...10-15% improvement...ehhh.

not really actually- You can only hope the PD is better than BD clock for clock. After BD being a disappointment in gaming Im not holding my breath. Ill take this with a grain of salt till the chips are tested here at TPU.

But it depends on what you count as the core. If you count the module as a core then AMD is not making 8 core CPUs but Quad core. If you count the integer processors per module then you got your 8 core CPU.

Its the closest term I can think to really call it if you consider it as a quad module, which I do. Each core does the work of two. Resources shared. Yeah its not virtual but it still isn't separate physical cores like it was with Phenom.

Personally, yeah I want to see AMD make something competitive but I cannot see this design as a true 8 core machine. When you consider that AMD can't make it's own HTT tech without paying Intel, this is the best solution AMD could pull. Is it a good start since it isn't virtual, but there should be an * by the 8 core part.

AMD in their past docs have listed the FX cores in reference to the module itself. The core would consist of 2...etc. So if AMD says those are the cores then by their own definition these are quad cores. But for advertising that just doesn't sound good enough. Quad core that does 8T without virtual HTT tech....nah, not gonna sell people on that. So, name it 8 core.

Will I buy a PD in the end, likely. I've been waiting for it. But I'm not gonna get hopes up then be disappointed. PD originally looked good on paper when the first info on it started coming out. But since then...10-15% improvement...ehhh.

Clearly you don't understand how it works then. Hyper Threading is virtual CPU cores, i.e. they're not physically inside the CPU, but it's rather the ability of one core to run multiple (two in Intel's case) threads.

AMD's route is very different, as their CPU's actually have the stated amount of cores. However, each core doesn't have a dedicated FPU and the cache is shared between the two integer processors.

Neither is ideal, but AMD clearly has a lack of FPU power and the shared cache caused some additional head ache, especially during bad predictions. But no, BD/PD is not AMD's version of Hyper Threading, instead it's AMD's attempt at adding more integer performance at the cost of FPU performance which doesn't really make sense... Now if they could do Hyper Threading on the FPU...

Well unless these new CPU's have increased their IPC rate by at least 30% over Bulldozer, which obviously they wont, they're still a waste of time.

Click to expand...

Indeed - You did waste some [unmeasured] amount of time to write that post. Huh! BD's and PD's time wasting circuits really do their job well - they even managed to make You waste time! Astounding! I'm definitely getting myself a PD now.